From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much? |
Date: | 2024-02-06 06:48:05 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LZUC-34ggvD+FQf0n7hwz7mz_Ftezb5mj3zRppT=mo3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:30 AM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 05.02.2024 15:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > If this can be reproduced frequently then we can even try to test the
> > patch in that thread by Osumi-San [1] (I haven't tested that it
> > applies cleanly but shouldn't be difficult to make it work) based on
> > the theory that walsender is starting up at an LSN somewhere before
> > where the publication is created.
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYCPR01MB83737A68CD5D554EA82BD7B9EDD39%40TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Yes, with the aforementioned modification of bgwriter.c and when running
> 20 tests in parallel, I got failures on iterations 20. 3, 21 ..., but with the
> updated Osumi-San's patch (which adds wait_for_catchup('sub1') before every
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION sub1 SET PUBLICATION ...) applied, 300 iterations ran
> with no failures.
>
cool, is it possible to see whether this patch changes the runtime of
this test in any noticeable way?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-02-06 06:55:29 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | Shubham Khanna | 2024-02-06 06:40:47 | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |